Mono, ON (Adam Jones) At first it might seem that the concept “minimum viable product,” is a flawed concept. It sounds as if the manufacturer is trying to produce the lowest quality product they can get away with. Any improvements will only come after the launch.
Upon reflection, you will realize that this differs from the method used by some make-money-fast schemers. Their mantra is “Barely good enough is good enough. Get it out there as soon as you can to take advantage of gullible buyers.”
- early users know they’re getting a to-be-improved version of an item,
- developers do tweak and upgrade the product in response to user feedback,
then I have no objection to “minimum viable products.” Indeed, under the label of a “trial run” or a “beta version,” I’ve seen this approach benefit all concerned.
Initial users get something that might be buggy. But it may help them accomplish something they value. They will trade off that they pay less than future customers. They will take pride in being in on something new.
Product developers get the chance to adjust the item for real-life needs and preferences. This often differs from what they had projected in the planning stages.